Re: [PATCH] staging: greybus: fix gb_loopback_stats_attrs definition

From: Shreyansh Chouhan <chouhan.shreyansh630@gmail.com>
To: Alex Elder <elder@ieee.org>
Cc: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>,
	Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	pure.logic@nexus-software.ie, johan@kernel.org, elder@kernel.org,
	greybus-dev@lists.linaro.org, linux-staging@lists.linux.dev,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: greybus: fix gb_loopback_stats_attrs definition
Date: Sat, 15 May 2021 01:10:05 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YJ7SFVInaYgJLywS@fedora> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <88d7da63-d03c-7fa3-a881-aff8e7b4a618@ieee.org>

PS: Thought I should clarify why I think it might help. The macro
definition for gb_loopback_attr, calls other macros, but since these
macros are not in all caps, (I apologise if they follow some other macro
convention that I am not aware about,) it makes them look like function
calls. And I know it were lazy of me to not look at the individual macros
themselves, I think it would be a lot clearer if there was a way of knowing
that these calls are infact to other macros and not functions.

Adding declare_ as a prefix to all of them certainly helps, if only a
little, in that regards. Functions are not used for declaring things,
and since the gb_loopback_attr macro itself would have declare_
prepended to it, it would certainly give a hint to the fact that the
calls used in the definition might similarly be macros.

Once again, I do accept it was my fault that I sent the patch without
looking at those definitions more closely, and not considering that the
developer who wrote it must have had a reason for doing so. I just
wanted to clarify that renaming them might actually help.

Regards,
Shreyansh Chouhan